Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'La simulation ne modifie rien' and adds a behavioral constraint: it must conclude no purchase is useful if the catalog shows no gain. This gives meaningful operational expectations, though it does not describe output structure, which is covered by an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each carrying distinct value: the first defines the comparison action, the second adds non-destructive behavior and decision logic. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested profile object, an enum, and four parameters, the description conveys the core operation but omits context about when to use it and how the profile/usage parameters relate to the simulation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage guidance is still missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by linking 'hausse de RAM ou VRAM' to target_ram_gb/target_vram_gb and 'profil' to the profile object. It does not explain the 'usage' enum or the required profile subfields beyond what the schema itself encodes, leaving a notable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: compare the same hardware profile before and after a RAM/VRAM increase, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like check_pc_for_local_ai through the 'simulation' framing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to prevent confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for evaluating upgrade scenarios ('avant et après une hausse de RAM ou VRAM'). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as explain_bottleneck or recommend_runtime, and no stated when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.